MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149134674 · doi:10.3732/ajb.89.6.1024

Seed dispersal and seedling establishment of <i>Sarracenia purpurea</i> (Sarraceniaceae)

2002· article· en· W2149134674 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aaron M. Ellison, Jerelyn N. Parker

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Botany · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and Biological Electrophysiology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHoward Hughes Medical Institute
KeywordsBiological dispersalBiologyEcologyRange (aeronautics)HabitatSeed dispersalColonizationPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plant ecologists continue to grapple with Reid's paradox, the observation that dispersal distances of most herbs and trees are too limited to account for their recolonization of northern latitudes following glacial recession. As global climate changes and natural habitats become increasingly fragmented, understanding patterns of seed dispersal and the potential for long-distance colonization takes on new importance. We studied the dispersal and establishment of the northern pitcher plant Sarracenia purpurea, which grows commonly in isolated bogs throughout Canada and eastern North America. Median dispersal distance of S. purpurea is only 5 cm, which is insufficient to explain its occurrence throughout formerly glaciated regions of North America. Establishment probability of seeds in the field is approximately 5%, and juveniles are normally found clustered around adult plants. The large-scale population genetic structure of this species can be accounted for by rare long-distance dispersal events, but its predictable occurrence in isolated habitats requires additional explanation. Reid's paradox remains an open question, and predicting long-range colonization into fragmented habitats by species with limited dispersal ability is a novel challenge.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of BotanySame topicPlant and Biological Electrophysiology StudiesFrench-language works237,207